Climate change

I'm freaking the fuck out, Sup Forums. I agree with Trump on pretty much everything but climate change. Liberals are telling me that the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable. Please redpill me on the topic.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
afr.com/news/world/us-election/donald-trumps-climate-change-stance-a-chance-for-china-20161110-gsmgm8
youtube.com/watch?v=nPWSC0Nqev0
youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q
youtube.com/watch?v=bTr5hYWtFE4
youtube.com/watch?v=pd0iV2u6Hxc
youtube.com/watch?v=7HzdYnHK_Tw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>climate change
>IN OVER 300 YEARS WE HAVE MADE IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE PLANET!
>LETS REVERSE THIS DAMAGE IN THE FOLLOWING 10 YEARS

liberal logic

Lol its like they think we can just immediately stop with no viable alternatives. They are fucking stupid

Complex systems are inherently self-destructive long term, as the increase of complexity is required to tap into new resources, with which newer increase in complexity can achieved, and so on.

>Liberals are telling me that the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable.

>Liberals are telling me

Found your problem, user.

climate change is code for population control

I don't take any libtard seriously when they talk about climate change but doesn't support clean nuclear energy. They'd rather have solar panels that contribute 0.2% of the energy and a bunch of loud ugly wind turbines. Then trying to make us pay more for (((green))) alternatives when really they just smack that label on for marketing purposes.

It will not in 1000 years though so I wouldn't be too worried and at some point will colonize our solar system making earth irrelevant.


Jus Sayin

-Scientist

this should help you

youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

Just by chance most of the places in the US that will be underwater will be the blue states.

makes the synapses tingle.

global warming != climate change

Climate change is a detraction from the real issues of pollution and sustainability.

Can liberals swim? Will we shoot down the rescue boats?

CO2 is good for biodiversity. We are carbon-based life forms

Simple. We need nuclear power

>Nerf Industrial in America
>They go to Chink
>Waste more fuel when transport stuff between Chink and USA.

Unless we somehow we fucking stop the caps and greenland from melting the sea level will rise and the CO2 which we emit fucking up the balance in a lot of ways.

We''ve already fucked it wouldn't really fucking matter if all of humanity started going green or some gay hippie shit.

Start saving up for a home on Mars lads, that's what i'm doing.

This. Also the fact the US's impact on climate change is negligible to Russia, China, and India who refuse to meet international standards.

Climate control is a existing problem, yes, but only for the future, it'll only cause signifigant effects around 1000 years from now, which is way ahead in the future, which we will most likely have a way to terraform planets to better habitate our needs, which also means we would be able to end this epidemic by then. Regardless, if this was to effect us soon, we could end up preventing one of the biggest issues of green house gases released into the atmosphere, which is manure, surprisingly. Cow manure is one of the biggest reasons why were having a issue with global warning, in fact, its 55% responsable for the reason of global warming. If we were to end up controlling this issue easily, say by mass execution of cows, it would take a great deal of the issue were dealing with off of our chest. Keep in mind, there are currently 1.2 billion cows in the world. Killing half of the population of cows isn't a terrible idea.

lmao those digits

>Liberals are telling me that the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable.
They're right. In a billion years

no one is going to take this issue serious until theres a massive refugee/immigration problems due to certain area becoming unliveable but mostly due to the flooding of densely populated areas, that is, the cities. even then people will still deny that the climate is to blame. one reason is it would require massive regulation of the energy industry which gets capitalists mad. but hey we got rid of "leaded gasoline."

inb4 people deny climate change refugees will happen just like liberals think hillary wasnt going to antagonize russia into hostile relations.

The main thing you need to know, is that whether or not Donald Trump is right or wrong about climate change is irrelevant to the outcome.

The US will still continue searching for alternative energy sources.

China and India will still be the biggest problem in terms of actual carbon emissions.

>lol we can't fix it right away so lets elect a candidate who won't try to fix it at all!
Conservative logic

>Please redpill me on the topic.

global warming is real, but it is also used as a political tool. western countries try to be eco friendly, and their production shifts to China, which doesn't give a fuck about it. levels of emited co2 do not change, only thing that changes is its orgin

The carbon foot print to put up the infrastructure for alternative energy resources is monument. But I agree with you we'll have to suffer global warming inevitably but atleast lets try and build a better future for our children

...

...

...

were so good at killing things we don't even have to try

>we'll have to suffer global warming inevitably

CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

The climate change is real.

There used to be glaciers in modern day germany. Glaciers, man, kilometers of ice upon the surface of modern europe.

Before that it was so warm that the Antarctic was a jungle as evidenced by tons of oil in there (Oil is basically dead dinosaurs and living things).

So yeah its real but it wont be your problem or mine and not even your grandkids.

The real problem is that we can potentially upset the ecosystem in such a way that an unbeneficial change will be kept in place indefinitely which Earth has so far been lucky to avoid.

They publicly deny global warming caused via emissions .(in there best interest not to of course). Maybe they know something we don't

why is this like a questionof belief ? Can't anyone just proove / bust thetopic ?

It's a geological historical fact that life on earth improves during warming, and mass-extinctions follow rapid cooling.

Stop believing unscientific bullshit that the left pulls. There used to be farming on Greenland, and vineyards on the British Isle.

Thats the problem, you are listening to liberals! There's your redpill sir!

Nailed it!

Bird deaths to turbines are a huge minority and it's actualy one of the things the energy (((compnies))) try to make a big issue of.

All yearly and in the US
2.4 billion by cats
599 million by windows
200 million automobiles
6.6 million communication towers
25 million power lines
2.7 agritcutual posions
234,000 by wind turbines


Renewable energy opens up a whole new market for people with the guts to invest to make big money. wihtout having to go though a couple of mega corporations

Wait till (((they))) have got all the use out of oil then we'll switch to something like solar

hmmm.... Less burgers and steak. I don't think that'll go down to well.
>CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
yeah that's what i was meaning. but air pollution is still a thing

youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
1:15

>upset the ecosystem
this is a genuine concern that should be addressed. The ecosyste constantly has been adapting and changing with the times but the kinds of toxic(unnatural) waste were producing is dangerous and i'm not sure the ecosystem can handle it

Northern China is full of polluted sandstorms, and they started fighting climate change a while ago, that's why they went along with the Paris accord.

If the US opts out, Chinese will use that to peddle influence with euro governments as their new environmentalist partner and separate Europe and America.

This plan became obvious after the election

afr.com/news/world/us-election/donald-trumps-climate-change-stance-a-chance-for-china-20161110-gsmgm8

It's simple really.

The scientists who specialize in research on it overwhelmingly agree that it is occurring (more than 90%) and the published research shows this. There is also strong agreement that we are the cause of it.

HOWEVER, because pollution in the form of CO2 and Methane emissions are at the root of it, and they are produced by our energy and farming industries (which are very wealthy and powerful) we see a conflict of interest.

The farming industries would like us to keep buying meat, and the energy industry would like us to continue using carbon-based energy.

So what happens? Think tanks are created. All sorts of money is spent on discrediting the science, buying shills from unrelated scientific disciplines to publish contrary research, convincing people that it's not conclusive. Poisoning the well to make people believe that if the scientists and the socialists agree on something then the scientists must be wrong, etc.

It's no coincidence that when science shows a major industry like coal and oil to be contributing to the warming of our planet, that oil and coal are fighting back with misinformation. Remember that scientists work in a self-correcting field of knowledge, with many of their peers motivated financially to overturn each other with better research. It is very hard to corrupt scientific research in the long term. So if it's a bet between scientists and industry, scientists are the ones to trust.

Did somebody say red pills?

>Climate Hustle Documentary Exposes Global Warming Con Job
youtube.com/watch?v=nPWSC0Nqev0

>Climate Hustle Trailer
youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q

>Marc Morano on the Alex Jones Show 4/22/2016: UN Climate Change Agreement, Climate Hustle
youtube.com/watch?v=bTr5hYWtFE4

>Climate Depot's Marc Morano presents at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's climate summit
youtube.com/watch?v=pd0iV2u6Hxc

>Al Gore's Climate Change Lies Exposed
youtube.com/watch?v=7HzdYnHK_Tw

No, the research isn't being meddled with. That's a PsyOP from the energy industry to poison the well of trust against our scientists.

Listen, there are millions of people who research this topic every day. They all perform various different roles, but the point is that their research all together forms a large picture of inter-connected facts and theory.

If a group of these people is falsifying data it would cause a disagreement with the rest of the research. This is actually what happened over a hundred years ago in biology when a fake hominid fossil was constructed. At first scientists accepted it (when not all the theory was understood) but then as science progressed the fossils did not fit. Then it was revealed to be a fraud.

Fraud is always uncovered in science because of how it works.

However, there are very wealthy and powerful people invested in a carbon energy economy. They want to hold on to that power and that is why they use their media cronies to muddy the issue, and make it look like scientists are unreliable and untrustworthy.

Yes, climate change is real. Yes, it's a problem. No, it's not about earth being uninhabitable.

The problem with climate change is that the rate of change is too fast, which will make attempting to adjust for both humans and animals unfeasible. It doesn't mean the ocean will suddenly flood cities and displace millions. That could happen over time, but the greater immediate danger is what it will mean for things like ecosystems, and very relatedly, and agriculture and other industry and infrastructure. The faster the change, the harder it is to adapt to the changes. Slowing down climate change still has its significant benefits, they're just longer term benefits, and has the bonus effect of creating less pollutant sources of energy, because even if you don't believe in climate change, I don't think anyone will say that breathing the byproducts of burning petrochemicals is HEALTHY for you. Think second hand smoke is bad? Stop and think about the hundreds or thousands of combustion engines you walk by every day. And God help the people living next to coal plants. They get the extra bonus of the radioactive material in coal that gets put out into the air.

This is not a US problem, but a global one. Global cooperation can more effectively mitigate the problem of climate change, though I suppose not necessary. Countries such as China push hard for it on their own because it benefits them. They have a massive pollution problem because they chose to push hard through their industrialization period. They got massive growth as a result, at the expense of their environment (and their citizens rights and health). The US is not the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, but it is still absolutely one of the biggest polluters, with it being the second biggest (with China roughly emitting twice as much, and Russia emitting roughly one third as much), and emitting more than most other countries per capita (about 3X more per capita than China, and 2X more than Russia).